Core Planning Reasoning
The fencing constitutes development that is not exempted because it encloses land habitually open to and used by the public for recreational purposes for at least 10 years preceding the development, thereby triggering the restriction under Article 9(1)(a)(x) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The erection of the fencing constitutes 'works' and therefore meets the definition of 'development' under Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
- While the works fall within the description of Class 11 exempted development, they are de-exempted by Article 9(1)(a)(x) as the fences obstruct land habitually used by the public for recreation for over 10 years.
- The Inspector found insufficient evidence to conclude that a registered public right of way was obstructed under Article 9(1)(a)(xi), but the restriction regarding habitual public use remains applicable.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective FPolicy Objective GIB18Policy Objective GIB21Map 7 Public Rights of Way
Decision Document Summary
This referral concerns the erection of two sections of mesh fencing (approx. 12m and 10m) at Killiney Golf Club, Roches Hill, Co. Dublin. The site is a hilly area of open space zoned 'Objective F' (to preserve open space), featuring several pedestrian paths used by the public. The referrer, representing local residents, argued that the fencing blocks established rights of way and habitual public access used for over 40 years. The landowner (Killiney Golf Club) contended the fencing was a necessa...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.
PDF Document Missing
The original decision document for this case could not be linked. This often happens for older cases or those with restricted documentation.
Search for case on ABP